THE EMPIRE

Grey River Argus, 27 February 1928, Page 5

THE EMPIRE

A POLITICAL UNIT Not an Economic One COMMONERS DISCUSS MIGRATION PROBLEM. LONDON. February 21. Introducing the Empire Settlement Bill in the House of Commons, Mr Somerville said: We ought to be emigrating two to three hundred thousand yearly. In the four years preceding the war, 808,613 emigrated to Canada. Australia and New Zealand. During the four years from *1922 to 1926, the emigrants numbered 402,911. One hindrance to emigration was the lack of spirit of adventure, and another was the cost of passage. He suggested the formation of a Board consisting of men with knowledge of the Dominions, and managers of the great railways and shipping lines. The Bill would give the Government power to establish centres for intensive course of training migrants, during which they could ascertain whether they wen* fit for farm life, and acquire tlie rudiments of agricultural skill. There were six million acres of land near the Great Southern Railway in Australia, awaiting development, where the experiment might be tried. He asked Mr Amery to use part of the three millions a year sterling voted in 1923,

for emigration purposes, as guarantee for the interest on the loan that woui I finance such training schemes. There was a growing conviction that this great question needed a steady great national Imperial effort. Mr Wardlaw Milne, seconding, said that, regarding the money question, under th? present fifty fifty system, the Dominions must be as we must be, very limited in the amount they could find, but was it necessary that we should always be bound by this fiftyfifty system. Mr Lund promised the Labour Party’s support, but said he hoped the fifty-fifty basis would be maintained in the agreements with the Dominions. Mr Amery, on behalf of the Government, said that, while agreeing with the second reading, he had sonic mis giving as to how far the fachinery suggested was really the best for the purpose. It was decidedly attractivefor the promoters of the Bill to say they contemplated training people for overseas, but were they also seeking a better chance for settling our peoph* in the Old Country.

Mr Amery, continuing, said it was not a case of the Government only

spending money to settle men overseas Some 30,000 people had been settled on land in Britain since 1907. a verv those settled in the Dominions. He considered it entirely wrong to link overseas settlement with employment. The idea that overseas s ttlement was an easy way of relieving ourselves o'* unemployment was calculated to pro duce a wrong reaction here, and in the Dominions. The main object of overseas settlement was a better distribu tion of the Empire’s population, giving better opportunity to every individual of strengthening the Empire’s whole economic fabric, which indirectly would have a most potent influence on the whole future course of unemployment in Britain. There was much hesitation in some of the Dominions towards Empire settlement. This was due to 1!’ idea that we were trying to get rid of people we did not want, and let them have a chance of sinking or swimming overseas. As he had pointed out in speeches in Australia and New Zealand.

Britain was not encouraging a single man to go overseas if he was likely to be a failure. Unemployment was her own domestic problem, and she must solve it on her own lines. She was not asking the Dominions to help with her problems, but was asking for co-opera-tion in Empire matters, in order i make a success of the movements of people from one part of the Empire to another. This was a policy of cooperation, and not a policy in which Britain got major advantages. Mr Amery concluded by suggesting that if we could stop the economic rot, wo would find a true policy of Empire development and a better distribution of population would become far easier. He objected to an unemployment insurance fund being used for training migrants.

Air Wheatley congratulated Mr Amery on pulling the Bill to shreds. Instead of sending the poor overseas, we should begin with the rich, who would come Io the top in the competitive struggle for existence. They wer? ideal Empire pioneers. We had a poli tical but not an economic Empire. The only Empire policy which could avail was real national trade. Sir Newton Moor? said the Bill did not hold much. If th'* Empire did not get British migrants, other nation.', would. There seemed some sinister influence against the present scheme. Difficulties and regulations constantly barred the way. Sir Evelyn Cecil said the debate had shown the desire of the House to get a move on with migration. If they were unable to get a suitable. Board, the alternative was a drastic reorganisation of the Overseas Settlement Committee, which in some matters lacked grip and motive power, concentrating too much on trivialities. Dr I). Shields (Labour) said Australia, having built up the standard life 25 per cent, higher than ours. Labour there was naturally fearful of anything which might bring it down. Britain’s terrible post war distress was probably exaggerated in the minds of Australians, supplying a terrifying prospect of the wholesale dumping of the unemployed, who would reduce them to th? same standard. These fears were largely unjustified, but any transference of workers needed careful consideration. Mr W. Bromfi hl (Labour) declared that those who had the greatest educational opportunities should he the first to take off their coats and justify themselves in the Dominions.

Mr T. Campbell said: We are no asking Australia for charity, she must realise that: but for the British fleet, she would be populated by lellow people. Wo have as much right to our way as Australia has to hers. It is a dual problem, but Australia does not seem to realise that she is dependent upon us to a certain extent. The Bill was read a second time, without a division.